John F. Kennedy a Half Century Later: A Legacy of Effectiveness and Cheating

John F. Kennedy is an American paradox.  His smiling visage was what New Dealers and their protegees imagined themselves to be.  But Kennedy also reflected the corruption and dishonesty behind the attractive facade and earnestly stated intentions.  Like his successor Richard Nixon, Kennedy mixed idealism and pragmatism well.  Both were effective presidents. But neither could escape the temptations of shooting a few rounds of dirty pool.

Kennedy was the perfect convergence of image, style, and accomplishment.  He was a genuine war hero, served respectably in the US Senate, and seemingly outpaced the shadow surrounding his bootlegger, Nazi sympathizing father.

The campaign of 1960 should historically bury John F. Kennedy's legacy in the same grave as Richard Nixon.  Falsely campaigning in the general election on the missile gap perpetuated a serious fraud on the voters.  Kennedy knew, via national security estimate provided as a courtesy, that the US was comfortably ahead of the Soviet Union in weaponry.  Yet he played on fears stoked by the Soviets that they had reached parity.  Nixon could not refute the claims without breaking national security laws.  His silence on the issue cost him.

But if Kennedy had campaigned honestly, would he have even won nomination?

Justice Allen Loughry of the West Virginia State Supreme Court of Appeals, penned a dissertation at American University that covered political scandals from 1960 until the 1990s.  The book published from it, Don't Buy Another Vote, I Won't Pay For a Landslide comes from Kennedy's glib reaction to accusations of cheating during that year.

Loughry's work draws from sources such as former political boss Raymond Chafin's Just Good Politics, among others.  It describes in detail how Kennedy campaign money appeared in southern West Virginia counties.  Once this money appeared, bosses supporting Hubert Humphreys overnight switched to Kennedy.   In those days, the bosses and their slate always won the day.  They had many loaves and fishes on the State Road Commission and public school system to distribute among helpful supporters.

And Ted Kennedy himself was in charge of Southern West Virginia, although no one has ever directly accused him of malfeasance.

Kennedy beat Nixon by a whisker in 1960.

Conservatives like to argue that Kennedy was not an effective president.  Setting aside one of the most corrupt presidential campaigns ever for now, did Kennedy govern effectively?

He did.  Kennedy understood that a strong national economy dovetailed into higher levels of respect for America around the globe, enhancing national security.  He also understood 15 years before Laffer drew his famous curve that lower taxes spurred economic growth.

That being said, he combined lower taxes with increasing domestic spending.  Chaffin actually demands the credit for giving Kennedy the idea about food stamps, but this could be a reach.  Domestic spending on welfare and development programs expanded, along with defense.  Kennedy wanted flexible response options, so his administration ratcheted up spending on weapons systems.

In foreign policy Kennedy was aggressively, maybe even recklessly interventionist in his thinking.  In 1961, he tried to convince his military leadership of the wisdom in deploying troops into Laos to fight Communist rebels.  This belies the liberal fairy tale that Kennedy would have avoided Vietnam.

In honesty, he may have torpedoed our main chance at victory by approving the assassination of South Vietnamese president Diem.  Imperfect as Diem was, that was a truly Roman Empire-esque action against an allied head of state.

The Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco does lay at Kennedy's door.  He was misinformed and inexperienced, but that was his fault.  Kennedy gets blamed for the Berlin Wall going up, but short of war no one could have stopped that.  The "ich bin ein Berliner" speech may have been awkward Deutsch, but Germans understood and remain thankful.

Kennedy's signature move represented leadership at its best.  After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy listened to advice from the president he abused through much of 1960, Dwight Eisenhower.  He listened to his advisers as a group rather than one on one, learning lessons from their disputes.  Kennedy preserved American respect and strength without firing a shot.  He deserves tremendous credit for that.

Kennedy did make powerful moves in the service of civil rights.  He helped to rekindle J. Edgar Hoover's old hatred of the terrorist Ku Klux Klan.  Attorney General Robert Kennedy allowed Hoover to open up a bag of tricks on the Klan reminiscent of the Czarist Okhrana, plus adding a few of his own.  Whether or not one agrees that the tactics were justified, they worked.  Under Kennedy's presidency, Hoover broke the Klan.

The Civil Rights Act, however, would not pass in its most effective form until the chief executive behind it spoke with a Texas accent.

Kennedy deserves credit for some notable achievements and blame for policy missteps.  Overall, he served as an active, dynamic, and effective president with vision and ability, same as Nixon.

Both men, on the other hand, had crimes committed on their behalf that struck at the heart of the American democratic system.  In Watergate, staff broke into a locked office to spirit away secret campaign files (this also happened to Republicans in Washington state in 2008.)  Kennedy's 1960 campaign suborned Democratic Party officials at the local level in West Virginia to steal primary support.

It wasn't "just good politics."  It was a crime.  And few people outside of West Virginia have any interets in adding this to Kennedy's legacy.

The passage of time mellows the most intense of hatreds and even some hero-worshiping.

We owe it to history to start getting the story straight on President Kennedy.

Obama Is Another Politician Who Is "No Jack Kennedy"

In the 1988 vice presidential debates, Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen shoved a rhetorical shiv deep into George H. W. Bush's running mate Dan Quayle.  Quayle somehow compared himself to John F. Kennedy and Bentsen responded with one of the great defining "gotchas" in debate history.  "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."

Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure.  But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power.  Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's.  But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.

A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations.  Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States.  Too much response could lead to regional or even global war.  Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public.  In October 1962, it became international news.  The president took 13 days to craft his response.

During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom."  This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others.  Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option.  From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives.  He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal.  Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.

Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options.  Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.

That alone should be an impeachable offense.  This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.

Private Sector Versus Pirates?

Should low intensity threats warrant an expensive high intensity response?   Perhaps the private sector can offer flexible and less expensive solutions than nation-states.

Last week, Doublethink magazine interviewed John-Clark Levin the author of Private Anti-Piracy Navies: How Warships for Hire are Changing Maritime Security.  Levin argues that small scale privately run outfits can offer better security at a lower price than national navies.

Piracy, especially in the Indian Ocean, has escaped the front page, but remains a threat to shipping and leisure cruising.  Other reports indicate that threats in other parts of the world have outstripped the danger lurking in the waters off of Somalia.  While 851 suffered attack off the coast of that quasi-country this year, nearly a thousand have been fired upon off of West Africa.

Like any other criminals, pirates take advantage of opportunity.  The worldwide global downturn left many nation-states cash strapped.  International flotillas from the West made the Indian Ocean more perilous for pirates, so they simply follow the advice of Wee Willie Keeler.  "Hit it where they ain't." 

"They ain't" in West Africa and other vulnerable areas, such as the Indonesian archipelago.

The Somali pirates themselves have become more sophisticated in choosing prey.  In the past several months, their attack to boarding ration has increased significantly.

Levin argues that western warships come with huge operational pricetags.  Warships cost hundreds of millions of dollars, using up tons of fuel, patrol sea lanes.  National taxpayers waste too much money on the maritime equivalent of an M1 Abrams patrolling a bad neighborhood.

In contrast, Levin says that a private firm could patrol the same areas and respond more flexibly and effectively for $35,000 or so per day. 

One obstacle to using private firms to police the oceans is international law.  Although this remains murky on the issue, American law is clear.  Congress has constitutional authority to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" under Article I Section 8 Clause 11.  Foreign Policy recently advocated their use against China in cyberspace.  Private anti-piracy forces would harken back to the more traditional sense of the term. 

Another option for Western forces would be to establish a more flexible command with low tech weaponry.  For the cost of deploying a handful of frigates, the Navy could build World War II type PT boats, such as the one commanded by John F. Kennedy in the Pacific.  Armed with several .50 calibre machine guns and torpedoes, they would be less expensive to run, but more numerous and deadly to pirates.  The World War II tactic of hiding small warships inside of dummy freighters to lure attacks would also be effective here.  

Stopping piracy requires executing a simple equation.  Make the cost of "doing business" higher than the rewards of success.  Along the way, American strategists need to also find solutions that are cost-effective, yet still accomplish the mission and keep professional soldiers as safe as possible. 

From Revolutionaries to Aristocracy

In the 1770s Massachusetts made a very definite statement about its opinion of mindless hereditary aristocracy. This week a majority of polled voters in that same state made their own kind of statement.

Most Massachusetts voters said they preferred Hugo Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy II. Just like his ancestor, he prefers the apparently orderly authority of a dictator to freedom and democracy. Kennedy appeared on commercials for Citgo that tried to restore the Venezuelan state oil company's image after Chavez stole elections. Analysts agree that the state has a soft spot in its heart for the Kennedy name. If you ran a pit bull named Kennedy up there it could win a congressional seat.

True, the Kennedy family has brought to the state a national leadership role larger than its declining share of the electoral college and congressional represetnation. It's not hard to understand why they would have a sense of loyalty. However you have to look behind the name. You cannot expect that all the members of a family will have the same qualities as those that have led in the past. This is not Rome, Senate seats should not be seen as a family trust. Then again we are a democracy. The voters have the right to choose.

Problem is that I am not sure what the Kennedys have accomplished outside of being tabbed as natural leaders. President Kennedy had some noteworthy moments. Robert Kennedy's reputation for ruthlessness died when he was assassinated. What had Ted Kennedy actually done? I may be simply misinformed, but what did he do to earn his leadership role outside of being the brother of a president? What have any of the other Kennedys actually done whose names have been tossed forward for public office?

Assigning someone a position of importance based upon a family name and little else smacks of aristocracy. Massachusetts is not the only state that gives a pass to its first families. However it was at one time the first state to toss that idea of authority aside.

Why Your Children Should Take the Day Off From School Tomorrow

Originally we were not going to run a column today. Events have directed otherwise.

****************************************************************************

You saw it here last week and have heard about it on the news ever since. Obama will be speaking to children in class tomorrow, Tuesday, September 8th. Not only will he give a speech, children will have to rate the three best words in it, discuss how he "inspires" them, and write letters about how they will "help the president." The message itself is benign, but the assignments ram home the idea that the president is an objective truth giving authority, not a politician whose methods are always to be questioned. Obama fest in many areas will be cheered on by enthusiastic members of the teacher's union. At the very least this is creepy. At the worst it is quasi-facsist.

John F. Kennedy appropriately asked Americans to "ask not what your country should do for you, but ask what you should do for your country." He had his own cult of personality, but he did emphasize devotion to the United States that he fought for in World War II. Our children tomorrow are asked to express emotion for Barack Obama.

This is reminiscent of the oaths German officers were asked to take directly to Hitler. It also reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the gang of bad guys are asked to "pledge allegiance to Hedy Lamaar . . . that's HEDLEY!" Obama politically is more like Hedley Lamaar than Hitler, but it is still creepy. Organizations across the country are trying to organize a boycott by conservative and libertarian families.

Even worse, it has become clear that the US Department of Education wrote directly to school principals, bypassing elected boards and supervisors. As a response, many boards of education across the country have declared that since the activity lies outside the curriculum, they will not permit its showing in classrooms. It shows an attempt to get past the checks and balances established by a democratic people to establish an agenda in a manner usually followed by authoritarian regimes.

This is dangerous. No other president in American history has tried to fuse himself with the idea of the nation. Obama's speech combined with the activities suggested by the Department of Education does this. Some parents say that their children are smart enough to question and fight brainwashing. That's a good thing. However, left wingers will see even simple attendance as evidence that the people accept this unprecedented behavior. And we will see more of it until this scourge of freedom is gone.

That is why children should either not attend school at all next Tuesday, or they should be signed out by 11:30 to make sure that the statistics prove America does not accept indoctrination.

Some Items Left Out of Kennedy-Fest

Last week we saw endless praises and near canonizations heaped upon Senator Ted Kennedy. Someone, somewhere called him the "Lion of the Senate" and others compared him to Henry Clay and Daniel Webster as one of the greatest ever. Of course no Democratic funeral would be complete without utilizing it for political gain. The Kennedy family brought forth children to try and convince the nation to pass socialized health care that the man himself would never have used himself.


You would never, however, go through a Richard Nixon death without mention of Watergate. Kennedy's misdeeds similarly ought to follow praises of whatever it is he did that was great.


Most remember the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Nothing to say about this that readers of thise site do not know already.


What many people are not aware of is how damaging Ted Kennedy was to this state. In 1960 the future Senator took charge of John F. Kennedy's effort to win Southern West Virginia. The region already had an unsavory reputation for corruption. Most county bosses lined up behind Midwestern traditional liberal Hubert Humphries. At this point their influence, especially that of Raymond Chafin of Logan County, was very strong.


Chris Matthews said recently that John F. Kennedy's good looks won him the 1960 primary in West Virginia. In contrast to this rather insulting and condescending assertion, West Virginians themselves have tried to relate the real story of the 1960 primary. Two books in the past few years, West Virginia Tough Boys, by F. Keith Davis and Don't Buy Another Vote I Won't Pay For a Landslide, by former Gaston Caperton Administration official Dr. Allen Loughry, discussed in detail the drama that unfolded in that primary season. Basically what it boils down to is that the Kennedy campaign pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the hands of county bosses. This caused them to switch allegiances overnight to Kennedy and to use some of the funds to line up precincts for their new candidate.


Dr. Loughry also argues that the massive amount of funds injected into the hands of the bosses and by extension many corrupted voters raised the bar for voting irregularities. In essence, to purchase a West Virginia election, a candidate would need more cash than ever. This tied some more tightly to unsavory donors while making for others personal wealth and the willingness to use it in illegal ways more tempting than ever. Obvious fraud and corruption benefitted the status quo since voters reacted by growing ever more cynical. When you have a mindset that all politicians are crooks, you tend to adopt "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" mentality.


And who should answer for this? Ted Kennedy's death removed a man who likely knew a lot, but never uttered a word about that scandalous year of 1960.

Governor Manchin Makes His Move

In a move that is bound to get the attention of national news media, West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin has announced his intention to give every full time state worker a $500 bonus.

Most states have laid off public employees due to rash overspending on wasteful programs and unwise raises of public salaries. West Virginia adhered to a much more conservative line by doing unexciting things such as shoring up pension funds and courageously refusing to raise salaries when the economy dove into recession.

However, lottery proceeds remained good and revenue from coal continues to give the state a relatively robust bottom line. The state ended up with more revenue than projected. If the governor has his way, half will go to full time state workers and the rest goes into the emergency reserve funds.

Whether or not Governor Manchin intended this result, this action (unless it somehow backfires) will propel him into the national spotlight. As California still wonders if it can open schools this fall, West Virginia not only refused to lay off employees, but will extend bonuses. West Virginia had to make tough and courageous cost cutting decisions to get to this point, but it was certainly helped by the balanced budget requirement of our constitution and Republican fights against any raising of taxes. Responsible cuts and refusals to bow to political pressures from the teacher unions helped to get us here.

Should Obama continue with his magical mystery tour of a presidency, Manchin could emerge as a strong contender for the Democratic nomination in 2012. Incumbents, such as Ford in 1976 and Lynson Johnson in 1968, are not automatically handed renomination when they have not satisfied the voters in their own party. Manchin certainly better resembles the Democratic Party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy than those who are leading it today.

I am not saying that Manchin would be a better choice for president than a Republican who will stick to our tried and true principles, but he does make me wish that if the Democrats were fated to win the presidency in 08, they would have nominated him instead what we have now.

Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy Are "So Yesterday" According to Hillary Clinton

Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ."

Woodrow Wilson: "I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately . . . Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion. . . . To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other.

Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged."

John F, Kennedy: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

Hillary Clinton: "Ideology is so yesterday."

Great. The ideology of Marx, the principles of a vacuum, the foreign policy of Richard Nixon, and the speech patterns of a valley girl. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your secretary of state.

Congratulations.

In confusion there is profit

In the movie Operation Petticoat there is a great line that holds true in today’s troubled economy. When Lt. Com. Sherman (played by Cary Grant) asks where his supply officer, Lt. JG Holden (played by Tony Curtis), is during an air raid the commander is told, “When the air raid started they took off. All he said was, ‘in confusion there is profit.’” It is play on Rudyard Kipling who once reasoned that it was a good thing to keep one's head while all around were losing theirs. Right now across the country the Federal Government and State Governments are loosing their heads over the economy but if West Virginia’s government keeps its head, then we as a state can profit from it.

The way for West Virginia to take initiative is simple. The same bad economic policies out of Charleston that hurt us in good times hurt us in bad times as well and we must change those.

Two periods of strong economic growth stand out in recent American history the one started by John F. Kennedy in the 1960’s and the one started by Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s. Both have a common thread, both Presidents cut the tax rates which put more money in the hands of the people and businesses. This allowed people to spend more money on good and services spurring economic growth and the businesses used the additional money to expand operations providing those goods and services. In other words growth breeds additional growth.

The additional growth comes because people naturally want to be rewarded for their work and when they work harder they receive additional reward. It is the American Way, it is Capitalism. The problem in West Virginia is when compared to other states our businesses and people receive less of a reward for their hard work because of our tax rates and structure. When the state takes a bigger chunk than other states it simply reduces the incentive to work hard in West Virginia or encourages people to move to another state. The state has created a ‘tax wedge’ against prosperity. The removal of this wedge will lead to people willing to take the risk of starting a business and creating new jobs in the state and in bad economy that is more important than in times of prosperity.

Besides the high income tax rates there are two other primary ‘tax wedges’ hurting West Virginia businesses, the Business Franchise tax and the Inventory tax. The Business Franchise tax is based on companies net worth, it’s not a tax on Franchises as many believe and is paid by all businesses in the state. The tax remains whether or not the company is making a profit. This is a tax that companies in most other states do not have to deal with. So in bad economic times this tax has a greater impact on with West Virginia companies that are struggling to make a profit. If a corporation is looking at closing one of two plants, then it will make more economic sense for them to close the West Virginia plant because of the Business Franchise tax.

The same holds true for the inventory tax. Sales drop as the economy slides downward, inventories of unsold goods naturally raise. In West Virginia our inventory tax punishes companies more and more as their sales slide downward. In many cases, especially with small businesses, this can be the straw the breaks the camels back. In order to pay the additional taxes imposed by the state with falling revenues these companies must find the funding. For most this will result in employee layoffs and some bankruptcy.

West Virginia must now make the hard choices to profit in this confused economy. The worse the economy gets the more our business are punished by the state tax structure. The opposite of the way it should be. Consider that eliminating the Business Franchise and Inventory taxes will reduce revenue to the states tax coffers in the short term, but if we don’t eliminate them and those businesses leave or declare bankruptcy they will pay no taxes at all in West Virginia. The cutting of the tax rates will put more money in the pockets of West Virginians and West Virginia businesses rewarding them for their hard work by making it easier for them to weather the economic storm. Making these changes will allow more West Virginia companies to survive and attract those that want to expand with an atmosphere that rewards hard work.

Removing the tax wedges put in place by bad Charleston policies will allow West Virginia to keep its head while other states loose theirs.

Coming Soon! The Cult of The One

BRUTUS.Ay, Casca, tell us what hath chanced today,That Caesar looks so sad.

CASCA.Why, you were with him, were you not?

BRUTUS.I should not then ask Casca what had chanced.

CASCA.Why, there was a crown offer'd him; and being offer'd him,he put it by with the back of his hand, thus; and then the people fell a-shouting.

BRUTUS.What was the second noise for?

CASCA.Why, for that too.

CASSIUS.They shouted thrice: what was the last cry for?

CASCA.Why, for that too.

BRUTUS.Was the crown offer'd him thrice?

CASCA.Ay, marry, was't, and he put it by thrice, every time gentler than other; and at every putting-by mine honest neighbors shouted.

This is a piece that I've been rolling over in my mind for a few weeks now. I did not know whether or not I would join the minority chorus of doubt leading up to the inauguration. What have we as conservatives got to say now that we did not say in the past year?

There is something deeper going on than a man's political ideas, something scarier than the inauguration of a president. We do not see it manifest where we are because folks here are by nature political sceptics. If George Washington himself, much less Ronald Reagan, came back we in this region may approve of him, but we would never raise him above us. We have seen and understood too much of politics to entirely give over our faith to someone who simply says "Trust me" and has no track record to back him (or her) up.

It started last year when the mighty Lord Oprah conferred her favor upon The One. Lord Oprah delights in passing out presents to the peasants, but for the first time in an election she poured out the oil upon the head of The One and anointed him with her favor. The people and campaign managers rejoiced and the all too human Hillary was swept aside.

Then came the Democratic National Convention. In a scene more reminiscent of a Saturday Night Live sketch than an actual political event, The One actually appeared under a Greek temple facade. Although he did not go so far as to wear some sort of toga and wreath on his head, it was clear that the Democratic Party aimed to set The One up as beyond mere politicians and other rabble.

Most disturbing have been some of the utterances and sights since the election. A friend told me of a liberal speaking on the radio about the qualities he liked in a president that ruled over him. Such language in the 1790s would have probably gotten the man a stern lecture on the spot. The President of the United States does not "rule over" anyone. He serves the people. That is why we do not call him "Your Highness" or "Your Excellency," but simply "Mister President."

Then I went to Atlanta last Monday. The Atlanta Underground was filled to the brim with Obamysteria. A T shirt with his face proclaimed "The Greatest Dream Has Come True!" A fifteen foot tall poster with his air brushed name and visage was available for anyone willing to pay $2 for the privilege of having their picture taken with it. probably the final straw came when I walked into a room where my kids were watching a video show. One of the people wore a T shirt with Obama's face and a golden crown atop his head.

The phrase "cult of personality" means that a person is trying to create for themselves a transcendent aura to gain power when they have done little or nothing significant to gain influence. Usually when we use this phrase, we apply it to Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mussolini. It could also be applied to Huey Long (dictatorial governor of Louisiana in the 1930s) or John F. Kennedy. Americans tend to reject transcendent auras around their politicians, but on rare occasions it does work. Cults of personality are dangerous to democracies because they convince the person around whom they are centered of their own flawlessness while discouraging dissent. In the passage from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar above, Caesar rejects the crown, but aims for more power than even the people can imagine.

The One's cult of personality is understandable in some quarters, but not others. News media outlets have fallen over each other fawning over him, not subjecting him to even a tenth of the investigative coverage George W. Bush faced. A few voices of reporters on the ground actually create a disturbing image. Dean Reynolds of CBS wrote of his overwhelming arrogance, certainly a negative trait in an anointed one.

For the good of democracy it is important to maintain the pressure. It demands that we remain vigilant over his actions and also try to deflate the bubble of his personality cult. Democracy is better served when we openly debate a presidents positive and negative attributes.

It is never served by annointing a "One" and following him blindly. Usually following The One brings a people the following disaster:

8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
8:19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

Who Dares to Question the Great and Powerful One?

Liberals, that is who.

Liberals have grown increasingly critical of Obama and he has not even assumed the presidency yet. He selected the Clinton Administration for his Cabinet and stacked the Executive Branch with Harvard grads. Charitable critics compared it to John F. Kennedy's administration, which was surprisingly described as blundering. I thought John F. Kennedy was the man chosen to lead us to Zion until his untimely death. Now he is blundering. Maybe because he advocated tax cuts and higher defense spending to confront enemies.

Obama has shown thus far a pragmatic streak, understanding that social engineering is bad for the economy. Ever since speaking with President Bush, he has shown a much more reasonable approach on foreign policy. Leftists are not pragmatic. It is their way or the highway and they turned against many of their own over time. We still don't know what a President Obama will be like, so we need to remain vigilant, but the more the Leftists fret, the better I feel.

Of course his deputy campaign manager promises that he will still bring peace to Iraq, end climate change, fix health care, cure cancer, walk on water, and resurrect dead pets, but this statement had a curious tiredness and surrealistic quality to it. The idea that a president can alter the laws of God and/or nature is awfully stupid on the surface. But he is The One after all.

I still would not be surprised if, behind the curtain sits Hillary Clinton pulling the levers and speaking into the microphone. Hopefully the GOP won't act like a cowardly lion over the next four years.

Debatable

Time magazine, rarely a publication with conservative sympathies, declared John McCain the winner of the final presidential debate. The immediate impact of the debate itself did not register the same with other pundits. McCain has a tremendous amount of work to do in the last few weeks to win the election.

I have a problem with the focus so intensely placed upon presidential debates. News outlets and major networks play them up to gain ratings. The billing for them resembles that of a boxing match, especially in CNN's marketing. How much do they really matter?

To me they border on almost the meaningless. A president's strongest attribute ought to be what he decides on important questions and issues after thought and consideration. The debate format reduces significant positions of policy into easily digestible chunks with an emphasis on how such information is delivered. A witty remark trumps five minutes of thoughtful response. Brutus can never compete with Mark Antony.

Picking who you want to be president based upon debate performance is like selecting an NBA first round draft pick based upon how well the player competes in H-O-R-S-E. It reflects one small part of what ought be be consideration of the entire candidate. What has he done? What does he believe? What will he do as president?

History remembers very few debates. Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest communicators to ever sit in the Oval Office, got trounced in a debate with the forgettable Walter Mondale. John F. Kennedy's debate performance (rather than his flagrant and outright lies about the "missile gap" in an election that hinged on the national security debate) is credited in his victory that he won by the skin of his teeth over Nixon.

Some great men would never have consented to debate. Washington (like Adams and most 19th century candidates) considered personal campaigning beneath him, much less a debate. Lincoln famously debated in a Senate campaign with Stephen Douglas, but never met his opponents in 1860 or 64. Lincoln was a master at this art, mixing a great legal mind with the fine art of storytelling.

The election of 2008 has thus far favored the great speaker with nothing to say over the solid man of experience. Speaking and debating reveals nothing of the true substance of a candidate. In stormy times, one should cling to a rock instead of a forsythia bush.

Ed Koch Continues to Support George W. Bush

Former Mayor Ed Koch represents a dying breed. He is one of the last of the nationalist Democrats that once dominated American politics. Starting with Woodrow Wilson and continuing through Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, these Democrats supported a strong American foreign policy. They learned the lessons of Munich and Pearl Harbor while fashioning the policies that Reagan eventually used to win the Cold War.

Koch compares President Bush to Harry Truman. Both men had a number of difficult decisions forced upon them by an unfriendly and changing world. Both men acted from the principle that American power wielded justly would deter the forces of tyrannical aggression. Certainly this required sacrifices that were not easy on the American people. History looks kindly on Truman today for his strength; Koch believes that George W. Bush will be remembered similarly. Bush's stand for a democratic Israel combined with his recognition of the threat posed by Islamofascism won him Koch's praise.

*************************************************************************

One of the last active nationalist Democrats is Joe Lieberman. Since his defeat as part of the Al Gore ticket in 2000, the Democratic Party has sought to purge him from his US Senate seat because he dares to support President Bush. Lieberman strongly supports John McCain in this election and a large silent percentage, if not a silent majority, of conservative and moderate Democrats will likely follow him. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has turned full circle from her Vietnam War protest days and looks increasingly like a Democrat of old. However the radical MoveOn.org organization's money will defeat her in the end.

**************************************************************************

Looks like it might be a little while longer before we find out who Ruth Rowan will face this fall in the 50th delegate district. Alan "Mitch" Davis came within twenty votes of Royce Saville. Although declining to request a recount initially, Davis eventually decided to ask for one.

Rowan is a two term Republican incumbent.